Criminal Misc M-7181 of 2009 v. Tarsem Lal & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 17 Mar 2009
- Bench
- S S SARON
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the
Provisions considered
Judgment
The learned counsel submits that the case under Section 12 of the Act was filed on 6.11.2007 which is evident from the order (P1). The respondents were directed to appear on 9.11.2007. The respondents put in appearance and filed his reply to the application on 25.3.2008 (P2). It is submitted that since 25.3.2008 no effective proceedings have taken place and the counsel for the respondents has been deliberately and intentionally trying to delay the matter on one pretext or the order. The learned Court ordered exparte proceedings against the respondents; however, counsel for the respondents submitted an application for setting aside the order and the learned trial Court set aside the exparte proceedings on 10.1.2009 (P3). It is submitted that in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the case is to be Cr Misc M-7181 of 2009 2 decided within 60 days whereas the present petition is pending for more than 16 months. It is also submitted that in terms of Section 12(IV) of the Act, it has been provided that the Magistrate is to fix the date of hearing which shall not ordinarily be beyond 3 days from the receipt of the application by the Court. Besides, in terms of Section 12(V) of the Act, the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under Sub Section (1) of Section 12 within a period of 60 days from the date of its first hearing. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the petitioner has placed nothing on record to show as to what had happened in the case after the exparte proceedings were set aside on 10.1.2009 (P3) or as to what happened when the exparte proceedings were ordered. The only other order that has been placed on record is 28.2.2009 (P4); according to which the proxy counsel appearing for the parties requested for an adjournment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that adjournments were taken as members of the Bar were on strike. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the Court in case the members of the Bar were on strike. In the absence of any material, it may, therefore, be noticed that on the effective date fixed for hearing on
Operative part
28.2.2009, it is due to the strike by the advocates that the case was adjourned to 30.3.2009. The procedure provided for disposing of an application within 60 days is directory in nature inasmuch as Section 12(V) enjoins that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application under Sub Section (1) within a period of 60 days from the date of its first hearing. The date of first hearing, as is well known, is the date when the Court applies its mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner approaches Cr Misc M-7181 of 2009 3 the trial Magistrate itself in the first instance for expeditious disposal of the case. No directions in this regard are liable to be issued by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner should first approach the trial Magistrate itself setting out her grievances as have been made herein and no directions in this regard are liable to be issued by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
17.3.2009 ASR ( S.S.SARON ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Mar 2009. The bench was S S SARON.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.